Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-08-20

will simply result from the restoration
OF natural conditions. and hence will
afford no Just cause of complaint. We
recommend the removal Of this dam,
but we do not think that any public
considerations call for its immediate
removal.
CONDITIONAL.
At Big Island the water above the
dam is spread over surface much
greater, apparently, that that of the
natural volume Of the stream. There
are islands above the dam, which have
been greatly enlarged by accretions occa-
stoned probably by the dam. These
may possibly he injured by the removal
of the dam but, as already suggested,
such an injury, il any, resulting merely
from restorationof natural conditions,
probably would not give a cause OF ac-
ton against the railroad company,
even in the absence of the special
legislation authorizing the removal
of the dam. Facilities for access
to the depot at Big Island from the
other (Amherst) side of the river
will, perhaps, be to some extent i'm
paired by the removal of the dam, as
produce from farms above is now boat
ed down the pond a considerable dis
tance to Big-lslani depot, and the
boats are poled up again without much
difficulty. This probably could not be
done should the dam be removed. We
think, therefore, that facilities for
reaching that depot, or some other
equally as essible to shippers. should
be provided by the railroad company
in case the dam is removed. 1t is as
serted, too, by residents of the village
of Big Island, and it may very probably
be true, that certain pools have been
formed in the pond above the dam,
outside Of the channel which the river
will take if the dam is removed, and
deeper than that channel, which will
become stagnant and will aggravate
the malaria which has heretofore pre-
vailed and still TO some extent prevails
in the neigbborhood. In view Of the
suggestion, and its probable correct
ness, We think this dam should not
be removed unless at the same
time such pools, if any, as those
above referred to are thoroughly
drained or filed up, so as to pre-
vent all danger OF malaria TO the
community. There are no water rights
involved here, and with the precau
tiors and upon providing the facilities
above suggested, we recommend that
the railroad company be allowed to
remove the dam, when its interests
make it expedient to do SO, with the
benefits of the law.
ROPE FERRY.
Rope Ferry dam at low water affects
the natural volume and surface of the
stream but little, having breaches in it
which let the water through. The
Que stion Of its removal or retention in
wolves, as far as we could ascertain, no
rights either of health, property, or
facilities for crossing the river and
We think the railroad company should
be allowed to remove it should il at
any future time think proper to do 50.
BALCONY FALLS.
at Bnlcouy-Falls dam the land on
either side Of the river belongs to the
railroad company, as does also the ce-
mcnt mill which derives its water-power
therefrom. The lease OF that mill ter
December 81, 1887. No ques-
tion of health or injury to the property
of others, we think, can possibly arise,
and we recommend that the railroad
company be allowed to remove the
dam, protecting, of course, any right
the lessee of the cement-mill may have.
WATER RIGHT CLAIMED.
Quarry Falls dam-Herc no sanitary
seem TO he involved.
There is, however, ferry above, be
longing TO Judge Anderson, which af
fords access to the railroad to a consil-
cradle community on the south side Of
the river, which will be very seriously
by the removal OF the dam
Hence, equal facilities should be pro-
yidcd in lieu Of that ferry whenever
the dam is removed.
A vnter right is also claimed at this
point by MIR. Paxton's heirs. SO far as
We can learn there has never been any
rccOrdation Of the contract with the
old canal company under which this
right is claimed, and the railroad COM
pany purchasers from the canal com
pany) seems to have had no notice OF
the existence Of the right. Under
these circumstances, ii Mr.. Paxton has
any right against the railroad company
il should he satisfied before the re-
moyal of the dam. Slbject to the
Of this right, if it is valid
against the railroad company, and to
tie providing of facilities i'll lien OF the
ferry, we recommend that the railroad
be allowedto remove the dam,
with the benefits of the law.
vARNEY FALLS.
Varney-Falls dam was almost totally
destroyed by the railroad company in
1882, under contract to that effect with
q proprietor above, entered into as part
)f the consideration for right of way
through his land. No injury to health
and evidently benefit to adjacent land)
las resulted from the subsidence OF
lie water in the pond, and as no water
rights or facilities for crossing the river
IRE involved, We recommend the total
.emoyal Of the dam.
THE LAST ONE.
The last existing dam across the
James river is at Indian Rock. This |
eaks so that no water is now running
over it, and yet it occasions as much
obstruction as ever in time OF high
water, and is likely to break around the |
light wing and occasion damage to |
ands below. No water ri ghts are sup-
Dlied from this dam. We DO not think
t at all probable that any sanitary |
rouble Will result from its removal, |
md if any should result it will be |
light and of short duration. We are
strongly confirmed in this opinion
" the results which have attend
d the removal of Wasp-Rock dam,
higher up, which has been totally |
destroyed. While the Wasp Rock dam
emained in good condition the pond
ormed by it extended as far back as
he village of Buchanan, the head Of
anal navigation in former years. The
of that dam and the sub
idence of the water thereby occasioned
IL the pond above left exposed con-
iderable surface which had formerly |
leen covered by water. We inquired
. p,obaron vrbother onv avi1enpes az |